Copyright © L. L. Griffith, 1988, 1996. ISBN 0-929554-01-9. This document may be reproduced in whole or in part provided that this copyright notice is reproduced on each copy made.
The phrase - "the king of the North" - is found only seven times in the Old Testament Scriptures, and not too suprising, all seven instances are found in Daniel's book of prophecy. The instances are in Daniel 11:6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, and again in 11:40.
The question that we pose here is this: Who did the historians - the contemporary historical writers of Daniel's day - identify as "the king of the North?"
The commentaries generally identify "the king of the North" with Antiochus Theus, or Antiochus I Soter, a Syrian ruler, of 281 B.C.
On verse five the Commentary by Jamieson-Fausset-Brown quotes Jerome: (1.)
"Here the prophet leaves Asia and Greece and takes up Egypt and Syria, these being in continual conflict under Alexander's successors, entailing misery on Judea, which lay between the two. Holy Scripture handles external history only so far as it is connected with God's chosen people, Israel."
Does Jerome's thesis follow Lord Bacon's later philosophy of a "continuous history" which relates to the Lord's prophecy about the restoration of the kingdom of God? No.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown continues:
"Tregelles puts a chasm between v. 4 and 5, making the transition to the final antichrist here, answering to the chasm (in his view) at ch. 8:22,23."
The opinion of Tregelles concerning a "chasm" in Bible prophecy was also a matter of dispute among the later Bible scholars. Scoffers of the Holy Scriptures indeed have appeared in the last days.
The New Scofield Reference Edition Bible footnotes (at verse 15) identify "the king of the North" as Seleucus IV Philopater, (187-175 B.C.). But in verses 21-35 they attribute the identity of "the king of the North" to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, (175-164 B.C.). Verse 40 is not commented on; of verse 36 and onward the text is said to "overleap the Church Age and centuries until the time of the end." No identification was made of "the king of the North" in Daniel 11:6-13. By implication (by the Scofield notes) the rulers of Syria are meant.
This method of providing a sliding identity or sequence of personalities for a title seems not to be anchored in antiquity, but appears since the times of the Great Reformation.
As Josephus was (as some say a biased) chronicler of the Roman Wars, so the Greeks, Persians and Egyptians kept chronicles of the wars of their own nations. Among the Greeks there was Solon, Pythagoras, Pericles, Sophocles, Euripidies, Zenophon, Thucydides, Socrates, Aristotle, Plutarch, Herodotus - not a few of the prolific and notable Greek writers who lived in the years after 550 B.C. until the time of Christ.
In Immanuel Velikovsky's book, Peoples of the Sea - A Reconstruction of Ancient History, (2.) there is an incident recorded of a Persian satrap who writes a letter to Arsames, his functionary in Egypt. Velikovsky quotes from Paul Tresson, "Sur deux monuments egptiens inedits," Kemi, IV, published in 1933, of an hieroglyphic inscription found on the base of a figure which holds an icon of Osiris:
"... [making offering] to Neith ... for the soul [ka] of the noble Lord, hereditary prince, of the king of the North - [making offering] to Neith ... that she grant funerary meals, every perfect thing ... for the [ka] of the noble Lord, hereditary prince, the carrier of the seal of the king of the North, a unique patron, chief commissioner of estates - governor of the entrances [to Egypt] by land and by sea, Nekht-hor-heb, born of Nes-en-per-Mut."
Along with evidence from another letter written to Arsames, Velikovsky concludes that:
"The reference to the King of the North in the inscription on the statue unquestionably means the Persian monarch."
Nekht-hor-heb in Egypt was Arsames's subordinate, the functionary of the Persian satrap, the king of the North. The hieroglyphic inscription found on the base of the figure refers to Arsames. The death of Arsames occurred between 406-404 B.C. The Persian monarch with whom Arsames exchanged letters was Darius II (Notus), who himself died in 404 B.C. The last letters passing between the two provide the information and the dates of death.
The continuous historical view of this period of history would have the Bible reader to think that Persia was no longer involved in the affairs of the nations of the Middle East, or with Egypt. Such an assumption is not true. Nehemiah paid his second visit to Palestine in 433 B.C.; Ezra, the scribe, came to Jerusalem in 417 B.C. Both men lived during the reign of the Persian monarch Darius II (Notus), 424-404 B.C., the king of the North, whose hereditary monarchy reduced Egypt to the condition of a satrapy.
The island nations of the eastern Sea and the countries of the Arabian peninsula were in constant warfare until (and even after) the lifetime of Jesus Christ, but we hear little of this warfare from the continuous historical viewpoint. However ignored, the warfare nevertheless existed. The identity of the Persian monarch - the King of the North - was never applied to any of the rulers of Syria by the Greek writers and historians.
The questions that we pose here again are these: Who did the historians - the historical writers of Daniel's day - identify as "the king of the North?" Who is most apt to correctly identify the King of the North? His own functionary in Egypt? Or the biased historian of the "continuous historical" school of philosophy?
When the angel continues to explain the sum of the matter in Daniel, and refers to the king of the North, (3) he surely refers - as stated throughout Chapter Eleven - to the ruler of Persia and to Persia's warfare "at the time of the end" against Egypt, "the king of the South."
1. So Jamison-Fausett-Brown, pub. 1871.
2. That is, ancient Egyptian history.
3. Per Danel 11:40.
The "end;" No. 7093, qets, defines the limit or boundary of a length or breadth; the full extremity attained.
In Daniel this word qets is associated with Michael's "last days" work on behalf of Israel, and during the time of all the days peculiar to the impending return of Christ - i.e., the 1,260 days (which are acknowledged to be the same as the "time, times and a half" of Revelation 12) of "the end."
Whose definition of "days" should we follow?
There is no Biblical basis for extending the "days" of Daniel Twelve to have an historical definition in the "years" of time which has passed since the days when Daniel received his visions from the LORD. Nor is there a basis for beginning the days at the time when John received his prophecy from Jesus Christ through the angel of the Lord. Such a practice of making "the days" into years of "continuing history" comes from an induced false premise which drapes a subsequent lying interpretation upon other Holy Scriptures.
See Matthew 24:15-22; and ask yourself why the Lord - when speaking about the time in which the abomination of the desolation is standing in a holy place - ask why the Lord, in verse twenty-two used the words "those days" when all the interpretations of the continuous historical advocates would have the reader to believe that Jesus should have said, instead, "those years." Why would the Lord still speak - 500 years later than Daniel's lifetime - of the future events as significant "days," but the expositors insist on defining the days as a duration of many, many "years?" Who speaks the truth?
The 1,260 days of Daniel Twelve cannot be associated with the fall of Jerusalem during 70- 72 A.D simply because the resurrection, the return of Christ and the reward of the blessed did not occur in those years or days of time. These three remarkable events remain for the very last end of things and only then will Daniel stand in his lot at the end of "those days".
When interpreting The Revelation neither can "the days" of Daniel 12 be extended into 1,260 years of events which mark the end of God's purpose with Israel. Daniel and The Revelation speak of the same last days of days.
It is ludicrous to expect any individual to 'watch' in hope for signs of the Lord's coming when every sign is continuously, historically augmented beyond the normal life span of the man who watches. When the 'days' are inferred as 'years' one is then asked to expect that a 30-year delay still comes after the "time, times and a half" - which concludes "the end of these wonders" - and then to expect that a further 45 years must follow until the blessed receive reward for a patient waiting for the 1,335th "day," (Daniel 12:7-12). This is an absurd rationale to base a patient daily watching in expectation of the fulfillment of "the hope of Israel" upon.
End
When Mede developed his "year for a day" theory in 1627-1632 A.D., he had no foresight of a return of the Jews to the land promised to Abraham's seed.
Some other ideas fostered by Mede which John Thomas adopted by following along with Lord Bacon's suggestion:
This item, No. 7, is likely to be the only true and correct literal interpretation, since it alone rests upon early apostolic tradition!
The other ideas which Mede fathered are borne out of the profane histories of the nations. Before the Reformation the voice of the Church was supersessionist; declaring that the Church replaced the Jewish hope; antisemite. Now the pope speaks more conciliatory.
So this honor of expanding a day into a year's time belongs to Mede. Many men "think to change the times and the seasons" of Bible events using symbolic, abstract interpretation. The honor of changing "the times and the seasons" is usually given by the Seventh Day Adventists to the Catholic Church. But it is wishful thinking made to support their seventh day doctrine, not from any understanding of the Word.
Because, Israel has been revived as a people. The "hope" has been returned to the nation.
..."Years" arbitrarily chosen, at the rebirth of Israel in 1948
A.D.
1948 A.D. minus 1,260 "years" equals 688 A.D. Was anything
notable about that year? Any Bible reference concerning the Jewish people?
The year 1948 plus 30 "years" equals 1978; 1978 A.D. plus 45 "years"
equals 2023 A.D. Will this generation of time conclude with "the days?"
Daniel 11:31 - which is admitted by the continuous historical view to be one of the three possible texts in Daniel made reference to by Jesus Christ in Matthew 24:15 - indicates that the sanctuary is profaned (made common) by the forces of the "fierce king" which place the "abomination that desolates." In the interim thereafter, "they will stumble by the sword and by the flame, by exile and by spoilation for [the] days."
Did 688 A.D. mark either a beginning or the end of "these wonders" which Daniel inquired about? Or, did the "thousand two hundred and ninety days" begin then, as Daniel 12:11 requires? Has any past date of years revealed the truth of this matter?
It is absurd to make "those days" into "years" of time. Time and the revival of the people of Israel has revealed "the lie" of the continuous historical philosophy and the promulgators of it.
What the many fail to perceive is the subtle switch in the definition of the length of the time period -- the days -- under question.
The many, following Lord Bacon's hypothesis, claim that prophecy is history; and that ipso facto, history is a record of holy prophecy being fulfilled.
Prophecy is uniquely defined in the Bible as the speaking forth of the Word of the LORD concerning a thing going to come to pass. Before the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the prophets of Israel, if the message delivered by a prophet was not fulfilled in the lifetime of the prophet who delivered the prophecy, both the prophet and the prophecy were to be judged as false, per Jeremiah 23:32-34.
History, on the other hand, has many definitions, but the chief is "that branch of knowledge concerned with past events, especially those involving human affairs." Clearly there is a difference between the Divinely foretold "work" concerning Israel, and the recorded but all-too-human affairs of men. History then by its own definition is both preterit and humanistic.
When the truth concerning Israel is examined, most of it will be found written in both Testaments of the Holy Scriptures. It needs no "continuous historical" theory applied to it in order for it to be understood. It is God alone Who gives good understanding to men.
Only since the nation's rebirth in 1948 has the question of the relevance of the "continuous historical" theory been raised, and this is because of the conflict with "replacement theology," i.e., supersessionism, which now reveals the Roman "Church" as the adversary of the Jews and a competitor for Israel's kingdom heritage.
The history of the apostate Church age and of its continuance since the days when Rome last destroyed Jerusalem has no compatibility with the history of the holy people elect of God. The two histories are frankly opposed to one another. Yet "the many" among the sheep are beguiled to think that the "continuous historical" theory supplies a true and faithful interpretation of the apocalyptic prophecies found in the Word of God.
As a test, take the book of The Revelation and with the "continuous
historical" theory's method, only try to read its "history"
backwardly into the Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel's end. Only then
can one see how ludicrous the theory really is. If the foretelling of that "history"
can be found there, the end of that "history" will read true to Old
Testament prophecies. If the beginning of the theory is not true, neither is the
end. The theory was induced by the traditions of men; and the tree is recognized
by its fruit.
End
The prophecies -- the book of Daniel, and the book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ -- quote the phrases "a thousand threescore and ninety days," in Daniel 12:11-12 and "a thousand two hundred threescore days," in Revelation 11:3 and 12:6; and a time period of "a time, times and a half" in Daniel 12:7; [No. 4150, moed]; and in Revelation at 12:14; [No. 2540, kairos]. In addition, the book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ mentions a (related) time period of "forty-two months," [No. 3376; men], at Revelation 11:2 and in 13:5.
By whose authority - the authority of heaven or the authority of men - are we to understand the meaning of these phrases peculiar to these prophecies of the Lord's day? How did the contemporary time-keepers and time-watchers of Daniel's era account the days, months, and time? According to the natural cycle of time, or according to the later continuous historical tradition? Surely evidence exists that will prove the true definitions of these words as they are used in the Holy Scriptures.
Are the days, true days? Are the months, true months? Or are these words merely 'symbols' of a greater length of time? Is a time limited to 360 days? John Thomas says that Mede, in 1627, was the first man who "interpreted the prophetic periods on the year-day principle..." So, how does the relationship, if any, of the "year-day principle" work?
How do 'symbols' become representative of things of prophecy? And exactly just what is a 'symbol' anyway? The letters of every language's alphabet are symbols, are they not? When is a "sign" a symbol; and when is a sign not a symbol? Are there no teachers in Christadelphia able to answer these questions without prejudice toward the commentators?
Who is responsible for setting the standard by which Bible readers are led to understand these passages of Holy Writ? By whose authority - the authority of heaven or the authority of men - are we to understand the meaning of these words and phrases?
The answers to these questions are important to the last generation which
lives and looks for the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. Answers are not
important to the adherents of the continuous historical interpretation of
prophecy, simply because these men have no respect for the Word of God. They are
lazy workers, deceived by supersessionist views, and do not really expect that
Israel will be restored as the kingdom of God in the earth. They believe another
gospel of men. Silence; stoicism -- is their best ally. The continuous
historical interpretation of prophecy relies upon a "symbolic"
interpretation of the words days and months. Upon these words
their views of interpretation stand, or it all falls.
End
Since I expect some of my readers to be found in Christadelphia, I must refer them to those wonderful tomes published after 1868 by an Englishman man named John Thomas. Many elders of the Christadelphian community fondly refer to him as "Doctor Thomas" and others simply as "the doctor." In all fairness to his memory and lively mind, we must admit that his primary schooling and training was for the medical profession, but that his career, after his unfortunate experience at sea, ran primarily toward the itinerant profession of his religious beliefs. Neither profession made him a rich or worldly man, nor did his religious-life experiences prevent him from "crying out" and publishing his views on many a Bible topic. He was a prolific writer; the editor of a number of magazines, a student of the Bible languages, and the writer of many articles and letters, but no god nor demi-god.
Much of his faith was developed before the Christadelphian body was officially founded as a bona fide religious sect of a protestant nature. He was indeed a product of the "Age of Enlightenment."
As might be expected of one who boldly thrust his "enlightened" views upon the public by preaching them and by attacking the established views, he made enemies. If John Thomas had no fault but one, it would be this - he was a great railer against men who opposed his views of Bible "things." For those men he had a scorn and not a longsuffering hope of their repentance - unless one is misreading the letters written to them. But just how different were his views from the popular views of his day? In what ways did he truly differ with them, and in what way was his view on Bible interpretation in harmony with them?
One may easily discover by reading the introductory prefaces to his works - those that have not been edited by subsequent editors and publishers of his works - one may discover that his views of the book of Daniel and the book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ were not uniquely his own. There are many individuals in Christadelphia who will staunchly defend the views of "Dr. Thomas" on this ground alone, that "Dr. Thomas says..." These individuals, we surmise, tend to overlook some pertinent things the good doctor wrote in that introductory material concerning his research work and the way in which he incorporated many of his research discoveries into his own volumes. Where did he find the views?
John Thomas followed many of the ideas put forth by Mede and by Elliott. In doing so he followed the lead of the continuous historical school of expositors who populated the time, and of the 200-300 years of the generations before him. Many particular views were therefore not distinctive or unique to John Thomas but he obviously did have enough respect for their conclusions that he did incorporate their ideas -- paragraph after paragraph -- into his own writings.
Let me show you where he incorporates such things in the volumes of Eureka, and let me show you where to find the information which he offered to his readers to justify his method of interpreting Daniel and the book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ with "continuous history."
"Christadelphians ... have confidence in the author's ability to expound it" [Revelation]. ...I claim no "divine and miraculous inspiration;" yet, I maintain, that whatever failures others may learnedly have accomplished, the exposition I have given in these three volumes, however "ridiculous" and "arrogant" it may be considered to affirm it, cannot be set aside by a fair and candid appeal to the testimony of Jesus, political geography and the truth of history." (This statment follows Lord Bacon's lead...)
If Christadelphians have indeed been blessed by the Almighty God with the knowledge of "the truth," it is only because those individuals have been the lover and supporter of the Jewish people and convicted in the "hope of Israel," and have looked for the restoration of the kingdom of God upon this earth. It is by God's grace that any individual Christadelphian stands at all. The just shall live by their faith.
Of Newton's "laws of nature" theory, and of his influence upon the mind of John Thomas, the reader must refer to Vol iii, (the) Preface, page v. On this page, John Thomas says "Many of his opinions were very crude. He generally agreed with Mede, but not always."
"The five-month period of tormenting in Apoc.ix 5,10, he" [Newton] "expounds as I have done," [our italics] "as signifying two periods of 150 years each, or 300 years for the times of the Saracens. The "hour day month and year" he reckons to signify 391 years; namely, from Alp Arslan's first victories on the Euphrates, A.D. 1063, to the fall of Constantinople, A.D. 1453. Generally speaking, his commentary was not equal to his reputation," [our italics].
On page 30, Bishop Newton is referred to by the doctor as "the bishop of Jezebel's English daughter..." Newton held the chair as Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge in his later years. He was unrelated to Sir Isaac Newton.
Mede published his Clavis Apocalyptica in 1627; his Commentary in 1632.
Newton "generally agreed with" Mede, as John Thomas wrote [page iv]:
"...After the era of the Lutheran rebellion against papal authority
came Mede.
...He interpreted the prophetic periods on the year-day principle;
...made the resurrection and ascension of the witnesses an ascent to
political eminence;
...made the Sixth Head under which John lived, the
Imperial Caesars;
...adopted Lateinos as the Beast's name and number;
...explained
the sun of the fourth vial of the German dynasty, as the chief luminary in the
Papal Imperial system;
...indicated Rome as the throne of the beast upon
which the fifth vial would be poured;
...interpreted the drying up of the
river Euphrates of the exhaustion of the Ottoman power;
...and coincided
with Justin, Irenaeus, and others of the earliest date, in the first
resurrection, being the literal resurrection of the saints to be developed on
Christ's coming to the Antichrist's destruction, after which the Millennium will
be introduced..."
The above eight points were developed by Mede and are followed by the majority of the churches in Christendom. They were also adopted by John Thomas into the writing of Eureka.
The reader is invited to turn to these references and to read them, to verify the words of John Thomas so that this writer cannot be held responsible for perpetuating the traditions of men; nor for misrepresenting them either.
Bicheno published Signs of the Times in 1793. Of him, John Thomas wrote: "His writings were interesting, though abounding with many speculations proved fallacious by the lapse of time. One thing, however, he did which should not be forgotten," [our italics]. He showed that the three days and a half during which the two witnessing prophets were to lie unburied in the plateau of the great city, should be interpreted as three lunar days and a half of years; and that Jurieu, therefore, was right in his conjecture that their death ensued, A.D. 1685. Bicheno's theory made the three and one half days to be equal to one hundred and thirty five years.
On page 31, John Thomas speaks of E.B. Elliott as one "in whom there is certainly more light than in Bishop Newton. Still Elliott's light is but darkness after all..." Evidently John Thomas professed no high regard for Bishop Newton's opinion on The Revelation but accepted Mede's opinions - with which Sir Isaac Newton "generally agreed," as stated above "but not always." Being more enlightened than either Newton did not make Elliott's views more esteemed by the doctor. (Elliott's "darkness" came later than Bicheno's theory that three and one half days are equal to one hundred and thirty five years!).
On page 36, John Thomas speaks of "the decorum of the symbol," a phrase which he adopted in his earlier years when writing in his magazines about the interpretation of The Revelation. Here he weaves "the decorum of the symbol" together with an application of Newton's "laws of nature" to the text of Revelation 12:1-6. Bishop Newton developed the theory that the miracles of the Old Testament are actually explainable as natural phenomenon.
An Index to Eureka exists for the original three volume edition of the work. While it may be used with the newer printed five-volume editions to locate a topic, the Index page numbers gradually lose correspondence to the actual printed page, and one has to search the general area of the page number in order to find the topic. My five volume set of Eureka, which I had read cover to cover even before my baptism, is over forty years old. It still contains highlighted notes from those days.